High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
1
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURTDISTRICT
OF
MINNESOTA________________________________________________________________
CAPITOL
RECORDS
INC.,a
Delaware
corporation;
SONY
BMG
MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT,
a
Delaware
general
partnership;
ARISTA
RECORDS
LLC,
a
Delaware
limited
liability
company;
INTERSCOPE
RECORDS,
a
California
general
partnership;
WARNER
BROS.
RECORDS
INC.,
a
Delaware
corporation;
and
UMG
RECORDINGS,
INC.,
a
Delaware
corporation;Plaintiffs,v.
MEMORANDUM
OF
LAW
&
ORDER
Civil
File
No.
06
‐
1497
(MJD/RLE) JAMMIE
THOMAS
‐
RASSET,Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
Andrew
B.
Mohraz,
David
A.
Tonini,
and
Timothy
M.
Reynolds,
Holme
Roberts&
Owen,
LLP;
Felicia
J.
Boyd,
Kara
L.
B.
Barrow,
and
Mary
Andreleita
Walker,Faegre
&
Benson,
LLP;
and
Matthew
J.
Oppenheim,
Oppenheim
Group,
LLP;counsel
for
Plaintiffs. Joe
Sibley
and
K.
A.
D.
Camara,
Camara
&
Sibley,
LLP,
and
Brant
D.
Penney
andGarrett
D.
Blanchfield,
Jr.,
Reinhardt
Wendorf
&
Blanchfield,
counsel
forDefendant.
Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 366 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 38
2
________________________________________________________________I.
INTRODUCTION
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
on
Defendant’s
Motion
for
a
New
Trial,Remittitur,
and
to
Alter
or
Amend
the
Judgment
[Docket
No.
344]
and
Plaintiffs’Motion
to
Amend
Judgment.
[Docket
No.
342]
II.
SUMMARY
OF
THE
COURT’S
OPINION
After
long
and
careful
deliberation,
the
Court
grants
in
part
and
denies
inpart
Thomas
‐
Rasset’s
motion
and
remits
the
damages
award
to
$2,250
per
song
–three
times
the
statutory
minimum.
The
need
for
deterrence
cannot
justify
a
$2million
verdict
for
stealing
and
illegally
distributing
24
songs
for
the
sole
purposeof
obtaining
free
music.
Moreover,
although
Plaintiffs
were
not
required
toprove
their
actual
damages,
statutory
damages
must
still
bear
some
relation
toactual
damages.
The
Court
has
labored
to
fashion
a
reasonable
limit
on
statutory
damagesawards
against
noncommercial
individuals
who
illegally
download
and
uploadmusic
such
that
the
award
of
statutory
damages
does
not
veer
into
the
realm
ofgross
injustice.
Finding
a
precise
dollar
amount
that
delineates
the
border between
the
jury’s
wide
discretion
to
calculate
its
own
number
to
address
Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 366 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 38
3Thomas
‐
Rasset’s
willful
violations,
Plaintiffs’
far
‐
reaching,
but
nebulousdamages,
and
the
need
to
deter
online
piracy
in
general
and
the
outrageousnessof
a
$2
million
verdict
is
a
considerable
task.
The
Court
concludes
that
setting
thelimit
at
three
times
the
minimum
statutory
damages
amount
in
this
case
is
themost
reasoned
solution.
This
award
constitutes
the
maximum
amount
a
jury
could
reasonablyaward
to
both
compensate
Plaintiffs
and
address
the
deterrence
aspect
of
theCopyright
Act.
This
reduced
award
is
significant
and
harsh.
It
is
a
higheraward
than
the
Court
might
have
chosen
to
impose
in
its
sole
discretion,
but
thedecision
was
not
entrusted
to
this
Court.
It
was
the
jury’s
province
to
determinethe
award
of
statutory
damages
and
this
Court
has
merely
reduced
that
award
tothe
maximum
amount
that
is
no
longer
monstrous
and
shocking.
Plaintiffs
haveseven
days
from
the
date
of
this
Order
to
decide
whether
to
accept
the
remittituror
request
a
new
trial
on
the
issue
of
damages.
The
Court
denies
Thomas
‐
Rasset’s
motion
for
a
new
trial
based
on
theadmission
of
evidence
collected
by
MediaSentry.
It
further
denies
her
motion
fora
new
trial
based
on
Plaintiffs’
failure
to
produce
certified
copies
of
the
soundrecordings
deposited
with
the
Copyright
Office.
Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 366 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 38
Add a Comment
Paul Defoeleft a comment